It's a little shocking that wages for men have effectively been stagnant for that long, but it makes sense if large numbers of women entered the work force and thus had a depressing effect on wage rise.
But the increase for women is shockingly small, considering "all the great strides made" - just saying.
Cappie-you should know we're now under a socialist regime. Therefore your interpretation of this graph must be modified to: "While the adjustment of wages to reflect gender equality has improved, it still has a long way to go. With a ~25% wage disparity, reflecting the failed economic policies of the Bush administration, we still have a long way to go to assure equal pay between men and women. Therefore we should provide a gender equity compensation adjustment of 12.5% from men to make sure that wages are fairly distributed to women. Any woman should be able to apply for a tax cut provision. Proof of citizenship, work history and gender should not be required as it is offensive to ask those questions."
Prominent labor economists (including raving feminists) have already explained 88 percent of the variation in income between men and women by factors other than gender.
Women tend to prefer jobs that are cleaner, less dangerous, more secure, involve less travel and less sales, i.e. they avoid jobs that pay more. They are less likely to be in a union and less willing to transfer jobs. They are also less aggressive in bargaining for higher wages. The flipside though is that female unemployment is lower than men and they suffer much fewer work related injuries and deaths.
Women have for several years outnumbered men in college which is one factor explaining the gap closing.
Affirmative action is another. I've witnessed right in front of my face women being selected over more qualified men and indeed positions created just to improve the female-male ratio in an academic department. Despite those built in advantages, they still have a national committee on the status of women in the economics profession.
Forget the M/F disparity, for a second.
ReplyDeleteIt's a little shocking that wages for men have effectively been stagnant for that long, but it makes sense if large numbers of women entered the work force and thus had a depressing effect on wage rise.
But the increase for women is shockingly small, considering "all the great strides made" - just saying.
Cappie-you should know we're now under a socialist regime. Therefore your interpretation of this graph must be modified to:
ReplyDelete"While the adjustment of wages to reflect gender equality has improved, it still has a long way to go. With a ~25% wage disparity, reflecting the failed economic policies of the Bush administration, we still have a long way to go to assure equal pay between men and women.
Therefore we should provide a gender equity compensation adjustment of 12.5% from men to make sure that wages are fairly distributed to women. Any woman should be able to apply for a tax cut provision. Proof of citizenship, work history and gender should not be required as it is offensive to ask those questions."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4&NR=1
ReplyDeleteVideo of Thomas Sowell on the M/F income fallacy. You can also read his new book Economic Facts and Fallacies for the whole story.
Prominent labor economists (including raving feminists) have already explained 88 percent of the variation in income between men and women by factors other than gender.
ReplyDeleteWomen tend to prefer jobs that are cleaner, less dangerous, more secure, involve less travel and less sales, i.e. they avoid jobs that pay more. They are less likely to be in a union and less willing to transfer jobs. They are also less aggressive in bargaining for higher wages. The flipside though is that female unemployment is lower than men and they suffer much fewer work related injuries and deaths.
Women have for several years outnumbered men in college which is one factor explaining the gap closing.
Affirmative action is another. I've witnessed right in front of my face women being selected over more qualified men and indeed positions created just to improve the female-male ratio in an academic department. Despite those built in advantages, they still have a national committee on the status of women in the economics profession.
Welcome to the oppressed class.
Is this for equivalent positions?
ReplyDelete